HC Deb 03 June 1965 vol 713 cc1966-73
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)

With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Cambodia and Vietnam.

On Cambodia, as I am stating today, in reply to a Question by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), I have placed in the Vote Office a White Paper describing the course of events and stating our readiness to join with the Soviet Union in convening a conference in accordance with the wishes of the Royal Cambodian Government.

On Vietnam, the aim of Her Majesty's Government is to obtain a conference so that fighting could end and a lasting settlement be obtained. The continuance, and, indeed, the intensification, of the war makes this all the more necessary.

This could be done by reconvening the Geneva conference, of which Mr. Gromyko and I are co-chairmen. I have on several occasions proposed to Mr. Gromyko that we should re-convene this conference, but he has so far refused. I now say again that I am ready at any time to join with him for this purpose.

I have previously described to the House various other methods of promoting negotiations which we have proposed, all of which have been rejected. Despite these refusals we shall now examine other ways in which a conference could be secured. In particular, it may be possible to build on the declaration by the 17 non-aligned countries; since some of these are members of the Commonwealth, we shall consult them at the forthcoming Commonwealth conference.

There is no reason, in common sense or humanity, why the following sequence of events should not occur. First, a conference under whatever auspices can be agreed; a cease-fire could either precede such a conference or be achieved at the conference. Next, a settlement which would assure South Vietnam against any form of aggression. Once so assured, South Vietnam would be a country in which there were no foreign troops or bases, and which was tied to no military alliance. Her citizens would then have the opportunity to repair the ravages of war and to determine, freely and in peace, their form of government.

The future relationship between North and South Vietnam should be a matter for free decisions by the peoples of both countries. There would also be opportunity for a programme of economic reconstruction, under United Nations administration. The United States has promised a generous contribution to such a programme; Her Majesty's Government would contribute, and I trust many other countries would do likewise.

This, I believe, is the right road. But I must tell the House that at present a barrier is erected at the very beginning of the road. That barrier is the refusal of the Governments of North Vietnam, China and the Soviet Union to negotiate at all. I repeat that, despite this refusal, Her Majesty's Government will continue to work for a conference by any method which offers any chance of success.

Mr. Peter Thomas

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the fact that he had nothing new to say, hon. Members on this side of the House are grateful to him for his statement, and certainly echo many of the hopes that he expressed?

As to Vietnam, does not he agree that President Johnson has already said that he would be willing to talk with anyone without imposing any conditions, and that the North Vietnam Government and the Chinese Government have shown no disposition whatsoever to have these talks, or even to negotiate? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that while at all times we should strive to find opportunities for negotiation, Her Majesty's Government nevertheless fully support the United States in its objective to ensure the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of South Vietnam?

Mr. Stewart

The right hon. Gentleman says that there is nothing new in my statement. That is correct in the sense that there is no announcement of any change of policy, but I think that I have gone rather further in describing what we believe could be the events in the future in South Vietnam. I thought that it would be useful for the House to have a picture not only of what the government think it right to do now, but where we believe that events could move.

It is correct that President Johnson has said that he is ready to have a conference without pre-conditions.

On the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman, I believe—as I said before—that until we can get a conference and a cease-fire it must be expected that the United States will take such military measures as are fitting and measured to the attacks which are being made by North Vietnam.

Mr. Arthur Henderson

In view of the general agreement on the urgent need to end the conflict in Vietnam, and also of the fact that a solution will have to be found round the conference table eventually, and, also, since the Foreign Secretary has referred to the difficulties in convening a conference and the opposition of certain Powers, including the Soviet Union, would it not be possible to invite the Secretary-General of the United Nations to make a fresh start and to invite him to convene a conference of all the signatories to the 1954 Geneva Agreement?

Mr. Stewart

That is certainly a possible approach. The Secretary-General has endeavoured to help in this matter before, but with no more success than the rest of us. In the present situation, however, I should be willing to consider whether my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion might be useful.

Mr. Grimond

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the United States has accepted the policy indicated by what he has described as the sequence of events which might follow a conference in this area? Am I right in thinking that the United States has offered a conference with no strings attached, either with or without a cease-fire, and with an open agenda? If so, can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the latest reasons given by North Vietnam, China and the Soviet Union for not joining such a conference?

Mr. Stewart

It is true that the United States has made clear its willingness to enter into a conference without preconditions, whether there was a cease-fire before or not. The rest of what I said seems to me to be in line with declared statements of American policy.

Mr. Grimond

Has the United States accepted the sequence of events described by the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Stewart

I am not saying that I asked them to look at the statement before I made it to the House, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the statements made on a variety of occasions by the President of the United States and others speaking for the United States Government he will see that they are in full accord with the sequence of events that I have outlined here.

As to the reasons given by the other Powers concerned for not coming to a conference, their general line has been that it must be a pre-condition that all United States forces should be withdrawn from Vietnam.

Mr. Grimond

Is it an agreed policy?

Mr. Stewart

I want to get this clear. This is not an agreed statement, but every item in it is in accord with the statement already made on behalf of the United States Government.

Mr. Michael Foot

I express gratitude to the Foreign Secretary for responding to the invitation to give this statement today. Does he not agree that if the United States were to cease bombing of North Vietnam it might contribute to getting the conference which he desires? Has he made representations to the United States to that effect? Has he made a comment to the United States on the proposals of the Canadian Prime Minister which were made a few weeks ago on lines not very different from the suggestion which I am making?

Mr. Stewart

We have made this and many suggestions to the United States. I think that my hon. Friend is overlooking the fact that the United States did halt the bombing, but, unfortunately, the reply from the other side was that this was a trick and a deceit.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether and to what extent North Vietnamese forces are operating in South Vietnam in support of the Vietcong?

Mr. Stewart

I do not think that one can say to what extent. That it is occurring on a considerable scale is quite clear. That has been made clear over a number of years. We know that, for example, from the report of the International Control Commission in 1962.

Mr. Paget

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the trouble here is that the North Vietnamese, who are suffering reprisals, are not in a position to stop this war, while the Chinese, who are in a position to stop it, are quite prepared to fight the Americans to the last North Vietnamese? How do we get out of that situation?

Mr. Stewart

I think that my hon. and learned Friend will understand if I do not attempt to reply to that question. I do not think that very much useful purpose is served by trying to speculate unduly on the motives guiding the policies of other Governments. We have to deal with the facts and attitudes taken up, whatever may be the motives for them.

Mr. Blaker

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that North Vietnamese forces have been operating in South Vietnam for a number of years is absolutely true? Is he also aware that it pulled the rug out from under the Prime Minister, who, in repeated statements, has said that there has in recent months been a change in kind in connection with such events, and has justified the change in the attitude of the party opposite on that basis?

Mr. Stewart

I was aware that what I was saying was true.

What the hon. Member is overlooking is the important change which came when the North Vietnamese Government themselves openly admitted that they were doing this. The phrase was used that they were "at war" in South Vietnam.

Mr. Warbey

Is my right hon. Friend aware, first, that the North Vietnam Government have never admitted that they are at war with South Vietnam, but only that they are helping South Vietnam to fight a war of liberation against the Americans? [Laughter.] I am merely stating what they have said. Secondly, why does my right hon. Friend persist in ignoring what U Thant himself described as one of the clues to peace in Vietnam, namely, the positive statement of the Prime Minister of North Vietnam, on 8th April, when he set forward the basis on which his Government would be prepared to enter into a conference, and, moreover, did not at that time state that they would not enter into a conference until every American soldier was out of Vietnam?

Mr. Stewart

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is correct that this is how the North Vietnamese Government describe what they are doing. That means that, whatever descriptions one applies, they are participating and sending men and supplies and military direction into this conflict.

In reply to the second part, there has never been any indication from that side of willingness to negotiate except on the basis of the withdrawal of American troops and the determination of Vietnamese affairs in line with the principles of the two Communist organisations in North and South Vietnam. That is much too one-sided to be a basis for a conference.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, since he took office, he has been very highly regarded for his own firmness over the Vietnam matter in facing very great difficulties at home and abroad? I have two precise questions. Could he elaborate a little on the overtures made by the British Consul General in Hanoi to the North Vietnamese authorities during the American bombing pause? Secondly, could he say something more about what terms of reference for the conference he envisages and what sort of membership he hopes to attract there?

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Member has a Question down for answer later on the first point which he raised. As I shall be able to answer more fully then, I should be obliged if he would not press me on that at this point.

I do not think that one can go into more details. I tried to phrase my statement in general terms—for example, the conference "under whatever auspices can be agreed, either before or after a ceasefire." Presumably, the general purpose of the conference is to get a situation in which the fighting stops and North and South Vietnam can live at peace. I know, of course, that the 1954 Agreement had in mind, ultimately, free elections in both parts of Vietnam and unification on that basis.

I should have thought that it would not be very realistic to expect that to be possible in the near future. What one would want to get first is a period of peace for both countries in which they could recuperate and then, as I said, the future relationship between them could be a matter, in time, for the free decision of the peoples of both countries.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker

While thanking the Secretary of State for his new and constructive statement, may I urge on him that, in view of the very grave escalation of the war which has already happened and of the much graver escalation which now threatens in view of the recent statement from Peking and elsewhere, he should take up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) and have consultations with the Secretary-General of the United Nations with a view to seeing whether they could find a method for the 17 nations which signed the statement to which he referred to get a conference at a very early date?

Mr. Stewart

I shall most certainly examine that suggestion and any suggestion which seems likely to bring about the first step, which we all want, of a conference of some kind with the general willingness to reach a settlement.